What are the Dems' REAL chances this Nov.?

Yeah, we're all quite sure that if the outlook on the probable outcome looked more favorable for the right, you'd all be just as silent.

Heh, indeed.

I mean, it wasnt like conservatives here refrained from "pulling political guesses out of their ass" on this particular internet political forum two years ago, with the Presidential elections...

nimh wrote:

Heh, indeed.

I mean, it wasnt like conservatives here refrained from "pulling political guesses out of their ass" on this particular internet political forum two years ago, with the Presidential elections...

And those that did guess were right,werent they?

And that fact just grates on you to no end,doesnt it?

I and numerous other conservatives in this forum have already indicated what they believe the outcome will be next week. In fact I recall Nimh making a sarcastic crack about the height of the bar I was setting - perhaps he does as well.

In any case, please enjoy the possibilities that await us and if you find it interesting and fun to predict the exact results, by all means do so. I imagine for some of you the opportunity to gloat may be to what you most look forward. To suggest though that this pastime represents some level of meaningful detail which Rumsfeld-like conservatives steer clear of, is simply laughable.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I and numerous other conservatives in this forum have already indicated what they believe the outcome will be next week. In fact I recall Nimh making a sarcastic crack about the height of the bar I was setting - perhaps he does as well.

In any case, please enjoy the possibilities that await us and if you find it interesting and fun to predict the exact results, by all means do so. I imagine for some of you the opportunity to gloat may be to what you most look forward. To suggest though that this pastime represents some level of meaningful detail which Rumsfeld-like conservatives steer clear of, is simply laughable.

Hmm.. well, fair enough. After all, if, as Snood and I remembered, the A2K conservatives did engage in the game of detailed predictions two years ago, it's obviously not some kind of innate aversion to the nitty gritty.

I mean, I can say: "oh, they're quiet suddenly compared to last time, now that they stand to lose", or, "see, those conservatives have no interest in the pesky detail of things", but I admit - those two things cant really both be true, cause they contradict each other.

I did find it striking though that both in the predictions threads, and the News and Discussions on House and Senate Races thread, it seemed that the A2K conservatives have very little interest in any kind of race-by-race detail - or at least, none they express here. I thought that was odd, which brought me to the "Rumsfeld" line of thought - is it just that they are only interested in the broad-sweeping, black and white, Us/Them, win/lose kind of narrative - and that actual, peskily contradictory or nuanced facts and details are annoying to them, getting in the way of some good old red meat rhetorics? It seemed like that could have something to do with it.

But yeah, two years ago there were some conservatives joining the discussion about the interesting features of this or that race, state, poll. So for them in any case that cant have been it. If they didnt join in this time it was perhaps only because it was depressing to them (or some unrelated reason altogether).

For the (more numerous) others it might still be true though, so there might still be something to my reasoning after all - but then, admittedly, most of the liberals werent interested in the detail either. "Who will win in November?" (We! - No, we!) is a much more interesting concept to most. Pity, really (to my mind).

Well, maybe someday all A2K posters will live up to the high standards and fine example of nimh. In the meantime you can ramble on to your ego's content.

Well, maybe someday all A2K posters will live up to the high standards and fine example of nimh.

I and numerous other conservatives in this forum have already indicated what they believe the outcome will be next week.

finn said:

Quote:

Well, maybe someday all A2K posters will live up to the high standards and fine example of nimh. In the meantime you can ramble on to your ego's content.

There was a wonderful bit from Fiddler On The Roof. The men of the village were talking among themselves on a favorite subject, the desireability of wealth. They were talking about how the wealthy had everything done for them, in many cases by these men themselves. One of them said, "If the poor could die for the wealthy, we would make a very good living." This was immediately followed by appreciative laughs and a chorus of "Well said! Well said!" That "well said!" chorus was begun by the same fellow who cracked the joke.

None of us set down to writing here on a2k without some pride, however appropriately held, in what we write. That holds true for myself, for nimh and for you, finn.

Above and beyond that simple fact of 'ego' is the more relevant matter of contribution to this community. I doubt that there is any individual who takes more care and time in research to provide the rest of us with quality information than nimh. And he does it with a level of balance and good cheer that puts both you and me to shame, finn.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Well, maybe someday all A2K posters will live up to the high standards and fine example of nimh.

One can only hope. But in the meantime, of course, you are indeed free to ramble on to your ego's content instead. ;-)

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I and numerous other conservatives in this forum have already indicated what they believe the outcome will be next week.

Many conservatives on this forum joined me in predicting the outcome of next week's election.

This expresses your notion in proper syntax and is much less tiresome to read. No wonder you're a conservative. Go read some basic texts on linguistics.

Well actually, since pedantic means stodgily and often ostentatiously learned, your tortured word construction would make the description fit you much better than plainoldme.

blatham wrote:

finn said:

Quote:

Well, maybe someday all A2K posters will live up to the high standards and fine example of nimh. In the meantime you can ramble on to your ego's content.

There was a wonderful bit from Fiddler On The Roof. The men of the village were talking among themselves on a favorite subject, the desireability of wealth. They were talking about how the wealthy had everything done for them, in many cases by these men themselves. One of them said, "If the poor could die for the wealthy, we would make a very good living." This was immediately followed by appreciative laughs and a chorus of "Well said! Well said!" That "well said!" chorus was begun by the same fellow who cracked the joke.

None of us set down to writing here on a2k without some pride, however appropriately held, in what we write. That holds true for myself, for nimh and for you, finn.

Above and beyond that simple fact of 'ego' is the more relevant matter of contribution to this community. I doubt that there is any individual who takes more care and time in research to provide the rest of us with quality information than nimh. And he does it with a level of balance and good cheer that puts both you and me to shame, finn.

Canadian Mountie to the rescue!

Here is the definintion of ego: Anyone who might put the mighty blatham to shame, must be superlative.

Give me a break bernie!

snood wrote:

Well actually, since pedantic means stodgily and often ostentatiously learned, your tortured word construction would make the description fit you much better than plainoldme.

Snood the White Knight!